Latest activity

Chig · Jun 12, 2026

AlanF said:
Let's face it, if they made a zoom that was the same optical quality, f-number, weight and cost as a prime, you would be crazy not to choose the zoom. The question is how much of a compromise in those factors matters to you personally you have to make to switch the balance of choice.

If the zoom is only slightly worse in each aspect I'd still choose it over a prime at least for birding

However a really good prime with 2 builtin extenders would be the best of both worlds especially if the minimum focus distance is shorter than the current primes e.g:

A 200mm f/1.4 with 1.4x & 2x for 280mm f/2 & 400mm f/2.8 could be similar size and weight to current 400mm f/2.8
A 300mm f/2 with 1.4x & 2x for 420mm f/2.8 & 600mm f/4 could be similar size and weight to current 600mm f/4
A 400mm f/2.8 with 1.4x & 2x for 560mm f/4 & 800mm f/5.6 could be similar size and weight to current 400mm f/2.8

but obviously a bit more expensive than current super tele primes

I doubt Canon will make my dreams come true though and I'd settle for a 300-600mm f/5.6 with 1.4x builtin and a similar quality as the current RF 100-300 f/2.8 and of course it would be 10-20% more expensive I expect. (A 200-600mm f/4-5.6 w. 1.4x would be even nicer)
This is much more likely to be made and I would be content with this paired with my RF 70-200mm f/2.8 Z

AlanF · Jun 12, 2026

Czardoom said:
Well, I guess we can all be a bit misleading. The OM 150-400 has a built in 1.25x TC, which you conveniently ignored.

Speak for yourself! People most often do not deliberately mislead, especially here, but unfortunately deliberate misleading is the curse of the age. I didn't conveniently ignore the built-in TC. You can add an external TC to Canon lenses, and it's the the number of pixels in the image of a duck we were discussing, not whether a built-in is more convenient, a topic currently being debated in another thread. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion on whether to to choose MFT or FF or APS-C because that is purely a personal choice as they are all compromises in different ways, and I do listen to you. It's just the facts behind that choice are open to discussion.

AlanF · Jun 12, 2026

Let's face it, if they made a zoom that was the same optical quality, f-number, weight and cost as a prime, you would be crazy not to choose the zoom. The question is how much of a compromise in those factors matters to you personally you have to make to switch the balance of choice.

Marc73 · Jun 12, 2026

Not sure what a 500/5.6 would give me more than my RF100-500 but I guess Canon would have done his homework and made a decent business case around it

cruso · Jun 12, 2026

What about a 300 Prime as they dont have a new one as the old one is a bit long in the tooth ? and it was a cracking lens They have replaced the 400 and the 600 already but not the 300 in the RF ?

blackcoffee17 · Jun 12, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
In my case, it's more often unmounting the lens, removing the TC and mounting the lens again when a subject is too close, but the end result is the same. As I posted in the earlier, nuked thread...an RF 600/4 + 1.4x is an instant preorder/buy for me.

Yeah, that happened to me also. The animal was so close that only parts of it fit in the image.

@zajicekpavel · Jun 12, 2026

Transbee

@zajicekpavel · Jun 12, 2026

@zajicekpavel · Jun 12, 2026

Lens + R7

John D P · Jun 12, 2026

jeff89 said:
The 8 lbs is a bear, the Pangolin boat had seat-mounted gimbal heads which handled it well, but with another 2 lbs with the R1 or R3, I can’t imagine shooting it handheld for any period of time, it’s the elephant in the room. That being said, I loved the pictures it took, and being able to flip the 1.4x into place quickly is awesome.

I did a Pangolin safari in June 2025; highly recommend. Due to a childhood accident, I have limited strength in my left arm. So, I use a monopod a lot. I also use it sitting in safari vehicles, which really works well. I have a RRS monopod for heavy loads and a lighter 3 legged thing monopod. I have used the Wimberley mh-100 monopod head, but have switched to the ProMediaGear tomahawk.

Czardoom · Jun 11, 2026

Michael Clark said:
It sound like someone has an inferiority complex?

Are you illiterate or just stupid? Ever used an MFT camera? Apparently not.

Czardoom · Jun 11, 2026

AlanF said:
Your arguments on cropping and resolution are misleading to say the least and absolutely wrong with the example I gave of a 200-800mm f/9 on the R5 vs 150-400mm on the OM because you ignored the point I spelled out in detail that the R5ii has more than twice the numbers of Mpx. Here it is given again with precise numbers allowing for the difference in formats. The 20.4 Mpx OM-1 II sensor has 3.34 µm pixels, the 45.0 Mpx R5ii has 4.39 µm pixels. That means with lenses of the same focal length, the OM-1 outresolves by 31% the R5ii. That means in focal length terms, a 400mm lens on the OM is equivalent to a 525mm on the FF. So the 150-400mm OM only marginally outresolves the much lighter 100-500mm on the R5ii. For the 150-400mm OM versus the equally heavy 200-800mm on the R5ii, the Canon outresolves the OM by 53% cropped to the same size.

You also have no interest in Nikon and Sony either. The Z8 with either its 150-600mm lens or its superb light Z 600mm f/6.3 is equivalent in resolution to a 460mm on an OM, and outresolving it cropped to the same size. Similarly with the Sony A1. The 61 Mpx Sony Ariv/v with its albeit heavy 400-800mm f/8 is equivalent to 700mm on the OM.

The image quality of the RF 200-800mm is not a joke from the many images posted on CR. I have never seen any image posted by you so obviously I can't tell whether they are more serious.

Well, I guess we can all be a bit misleading. The OM 150-400 has a built in 1.25x TC, which you conveniently ignored. So it is actually equivalent to 655mm now compared to the Canon 100-500 on FF. While the OM 150-500 is heavier, it has a much shorter throw, and takes both 1.4x and 2.0x TCs with very good results and without the hassle. The RF 200-800 is not equally heavy, it is definitely heavier, bulkier, and has a ridiculously long throw. Sorry, it is not in the same class. A shot with my OM 150-400 with a 1.4x TC is going to outresolve the RF 200-800 at 800mm.

I know my opinion doesn't seem to matter to you, but Duade Paton calls it "one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used." Not sharpest zoom lenses, one of the sharpest lenses period.

My intent is not to criticize Canon, so there is no reason to get defensive. I used the the Canon 100-500 for a number of years and recommend it highly. I would say it is an excellent lens. I used the RF 200-800 for over half a year as well and consider it a great value for the money. It was definitely sharper than I expected. All I can say is that having used both systems for years, I no longer own the Canon lenses, the Canon R5, the Canon R7 and the Canon R6 II because they did not give me quite as good results as my OM-1 and OM 150-400. Whether this is just personal preference, some sort of bias, or my ability to get more out of my OM gear than my Canon gear, I can't say. Clearly, you can't go wrong with any of these cameras and lenses.

john1970 · Jun 11, 2026

scyrene said:
I seem to be the only person who chose the 500 over the 600 because of the price difference rather than size/weight. I was able to get the former and a 5D3 for the same outlay as just the 600 (back in 2012 when they were all pretty new). I would have preferred the longer lens but I just couldn't stretch my budget that far.

Nothing wrong for choosing a lens at a lower price point. I used to use the 500 mm f4 over the 600 mm f4 due to cost, size and weight. My fingers are crossed that Canon eventually release a 500 mm f4 (f4.5) DO lens (ideally with a built-in TC). I would likely trade in my 400 mm f2.8 lens towards the purchase.

jeff89 · Jun 11, 2026

John D P said:
I'm renting an RF 400mm 2.8 for my up coming brown bear trip in July. I know there will be alot of good used RF 400mm 2.8 lenses hit the market as people upgrade. I debating how much I really want the built in teleconverter or how much I'm willing to pay for it. Truth is I really do want it! I would prefer a simple reliable 1.4 switchable teleconverter versus a complex 1.4 & 2.0 setup. Will have to see what they release.

The price is going to be interesting. The current Canon RF 400mm 2.8 is $13,400 new. The Sony 400mm 2.8 is $13,000. The Nikon 400mm with a built in teleconverter was $14,700, but is now $12,700 (B&H prices). I would be really annoyed if I bought the Nikon lens for $14,700 and it just devalued $2,000.

I prefer zooms for wildlife, but 400mm at the wider apertures is really nice for low light and bokeh. I was seriously considering the 300-600mm f4-5.6, but I'm not interested in a fixed 5.6 for the projected price. The original article mentioned that the Canon EF 200-400mm f4 with 1.4 teleconverter didn't sell well. That surprised me for 2013. I considered this lens, but not in love with the 8lb wt for the price. Maybe Canon is having second thoughts about the 300-600mm. I have the 100-500mm f4.5-7; it's actually a great lens. But not in love with the teleconverter situation, external zoom, or 7.1`on the long end. An updated f4.0-5.6 100-500mm or a 180/200-600mm would probably sell better then a 300-600mm.

I'm sure a 500mm 5.6 prime for $4000, similar to Nikon's small affordable prime lens, would make a lot of people happy. A 700mm f6.3 would also be great.

The 8 lbs is a bear, the Pangolin boat had seat-mounted gimbal heads which handled it well, but with another 2 lbs with the R1 or R3, I can’t imagine shooting it handheld for any period of time, it’s the elephant in the room. That being said, I loved the pictures it took, and being able to flip the 1.4x into place quickly is awesome.

AlanF · Jun 11, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
In my case, it's more often unmounting the lens, removing the TC and mounting the lens again when a subject is too close, but the end result is the same. As I posted in the earlier, nuked thread...an RF 600/4 + 1.4x is an instant preorder/buy for me.

I have missed more shots by having 1.4x too long a focal length than spoiling a shot by not having 40% more focal length.

neuroanatomist · Jun 11, 2026

blackcoffee17 said:
Then add the convenience of instant switch when needed and the option to add another external TC. By the time you unmount the lens, add the TC and mount the lens again, the subject might be long gone.

In my case, it's more often unmounting the lens, removing the TC and mounting the lens again when a subject is too close, but the end result is the same. As I posted in the earlier, nuked thread...an RF 600/4 + 1.4x is an instant preorder/buy for me.

becceric · Jun 11, 2026

ISv said:
No hybridization, just two different species!!! I just checked the internet and was very surprised from what I found: the things created by AI in this specific case are totally misleading - it's talking about two FORMS or SUBSPECIES (American and Eurasian) instead of two SPECIES. Total mess!
In Wikipedia it's better (and still not perfect! Do they started using AI too?!).

Thanks. I'll keep my eyes open on the sources.

becceric · Jun 11, 2026

@zajicekpavel said:
The bottom one is absolutely perfect.

Thanks!

blackcoffee17 · Jun 11, 2026

Rceres said:
Call me crazy, and I’m not in the market for these lenses, so take my opinion with the healthy skepticism it deserves, but for me, I question utility of built-in teleconverters.
I understand the convenience. One lens can effectively become two or three focal lengths at the flip of a switch. For professional sports or wildlife professionals it makes sense.
But every lens reflects design objective tradeoffs. Built-in teleconverters will add cost, complexity, size, weight, and potentially impact optical performance. Those tradeoffs are exactly why I’ve almost always preferred shooting primes over zooms.
For some, the convenience is absolutely worth it. And as noted already, others would prefer carrying a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter in a vest pocket that can be shared across multiple lenses.
Another of the comments above about handling long lenses in high winds struck me as particularly relevant. Every ounce and every inch matters when you’re already working at 400mm, 600mm, or beyond.
I might occasionally rent a 400mm f/2.8 with a built-in teleconverter, but I doubt I’d ever buy one.
On the other hand, if Canon announced an RF 200mm f/1.8L halo prime, I’d be reaching for my credit card immediately. Just please don’t put a built-in teleconverter in it.
Just my two cents.

Built-in teleconverters are most likely always better than lens + TC from image quality perspective because they are optimized to a single lens. Then add the convenience of instant switch when needed and the option to add another external TC. By the time you unmount the lens, add the TC and mount the lens again, the subject might be long gone.

DocInfoSci · Jun 11, 2026

Rceres said:
Call me crazy, and I’m not in the market for these lenses, so take my opinion with the healthy skepticism it deserves, but for me, I question utility of built-in teleconverters.
I understand the convenience. One lens can effectively become two or three focal lengths at the flip of a switch. For professional sports or wildlife professionals it makes sense.
But every lens reflects design objective tradeoffs. Built-in teleconverters will add cost, complexity, size, weight, and potentially impact optical performance. Those tradeoffs are exactly why I’ve almost always preferred shooting primes over zooms.
For some, the convenience is absolutely worth it. And as noted already, others would prefer carrying a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter in a vest pocket that can be shared across multiple lenses.
Another of the comments above about handling long lenses in high winds struck me as particularly relevant. Every ounce and every inch matters when you’re already working at 400mm, 600mm, or beyond.
I might occasionally rent a 400mm f/2.8 with a built-in teleconverter, but I doubt I’d ever buy one.
On the other hand, if Canon announced an RF 200mm f/1.8L halo prime, I’d be reaching for my credit card immediately. Just please don’t put a built-in teleconverter in it.
Just my two cents.

I use extenders regularly, but none built-in. The primary benefit, in my opinion, is for when the environment makes taking the lens off dangerous to the gear — such as salt spray, blowing grit, sitting in a kayak, etc.; and yet, the benefits of the prime for its typical scenario (probably low light capability) makes it an overwhelming solution to beat out a zoom in the same range.

DocInfoSci · Jun 11, 2026

AlanF said:
If that's your opinion, you can get this from Amazon and put it on your Big White to remind you.

View attachment 230024

Haha, awesome. Although, honestly, I think sometimes the discussions here devolve into...

scyrene · Jun 11, 2026

I seem to be the only person who chose the 500 over the 600 because of the price difference rather than size/weight. I was able to get the former and a 5D3 for the same outlay as just the 600 (back in 2012 when they were all pretty new). I would have preferred the longer lens but I just couldn't stretch my budget that far.

Rceres · Jun 11, 2026

Call me crazy, and I’m not in the market for these lenses, so take my opinion with the healthy skepticism it deserves, but for me, I question utility of built-in teleconverters.
I understand the convenience. One lens can effectively become two or three focal lengths at the flip of a switch. For professional sports or wildlife professionals it makes sense.
But every lens reflects design objective tradeoffs. Built-in teleconverters will add cost, complexity, size, weight, and potentially impact optical performance. Those tradeoffs are exactly why I’ve almost always preferred shooting primes over zooms.
For some, the convenience is absolutely worth it. And as noted already, others would prefer carrying a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter in a vest pocket that can be shared across multiple lenses.
Another of the comments above about handling long lenses in high winds struck me as particularly relevant. Every ounce and every inch matters when you’re already working at 400mm, 600mm, or beyond.
I might occasionally rent a 400mm f/2.8 with a built-in teleconverter, but I doubt I’d ever buy one.
On the other hand, if Canon announced an RF 200mm f/1.8L halo prime, I’d be reaching for my credit card immediately. Just please don’t put a built-in teleconverter in it.
Just my two cents.

john1970 · Jun 11, 2026

juststeve said:
A 500/4 lens with DO could be mighty attractive. Heck, spice it up a bit more with a 1.4x. As much as I weighed getting that Nikon 600/4 1.4x a year ago, a 500/4 DO lens would get my money so fast my credit card would ignite.

Years ago when I bought my 500/4 L ii the reason I went for it was it was enough more compact than the 600 and a bit lighter. But it was the more compact nature which attracted me. I photograph mainly in MT and WY. Often windy places. I found the 600/4, even at plus 13 pounds, bounced around in the wind, even with a heavy duty tripod and a high quality video head. The 400/2.8 L IS which followed, short, fat and heavy at 12 plus pounds, was better in the wind. Much later there was a time when the 500/4 L ii was at an especially good price and weighed 5 1/2 pounds less than the 400/2.8. Not having the backbone to resist the temptation I got the 500. It turned out to be a great choice for my use, light and agile enough to swing on birds, and still long enough to deal with critters large, fury and toothsome. Oh, and extremely sharp.

So as much as I like that lens and the 100-500 RF lens I nearly always carry, a 500/4 or 4.5 DO lens would be special for me. An instant purchase.

If Canon released a 500 mm f4 DO I would likely trade-in the 400 mm f2.8 for it.

john1970 · Jun 11, 2026

John D P said:
Thanks for your input. I'm going to Lake Clark. I'm taking two R5m2 cameras, 400 f2.8, 100-500 4.5-7.1, 70-200mm Z, and a 1.4 teleconverter. I haven't done this trip before. I have been researching on the internet, so I have some idea. I was thinking of doing the low light times with the 400 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 Z ( possibly with the 1.4 giving me 96-280 f4 ). Then switching the 70-200 for the 100-500 when I have good light. I do prefer the versatility of a zoom for wildlife, but I want to use a prime. I've thought about the 100-300; how do you like it?

I like the 100-300 mm f2.8, but once you add the lens hood, lens coat, 2x TC it tips the scale at almost 7 lbs which get a bit heavy. With the 2x TC the 100-300 mm f2.8 is only a bit lighter than the 400 f2.8 with 1.4x TC. Go figure.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics